Comment on Who the fuck needs an x axis anyway
BrrdShrrmp@lemmy.ca 1 week agoWhen they collected the data in 2000, about seven 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 1992.
When they collected the data in 2002, about six 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 1994. This information was not labelled on the x axis.
When they collected the data in 2004, about eight 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 1996.
When they collected the data in 2006, about six 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 1998. This information was not labelled on the x axis.
When they collected the data in 2008, about eleven 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 2000.
… I’m too lazy to continue but …
When they collected the data in 2020, about twenty seven 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 2012.
When they collected the data in 2022, about thirty two 8 year olds out of 1000 had autism. Those children were born in 2014. This information was not labelled on the x axis.
I’m not positive i’m reading it right, but that’s what I think they were trying to convey with this (terribly labeled) graph.
GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Any clue why there are 2 bars per year grouping?
I thought it was maybe number of cases in each year, but 2000 at the beginning of the graph and when 2000 appears later don’t match.
BrrdShrrmp@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
I think there’s actually not 2 bars per year, but instead:
The x axis increases by 2 years each entry.
The number after the “|” is only meant to “helpfully” (and confusingly) tell you when those children were born. To take your example:
GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 6 days ago
That makes sense now! Thank you, I was having trouble wrapping my head around it!